If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If done correctly, studies can be extrapolated to be representative of the whole population. That is the idea behind statistics and the scientific method.

Either way it shouldn't matter whether someone chooses to be gay or not. I don't believe it is a choice. If it were then frankly I don't understand why gays in places like Africa and the Middle East don't choose to be straight rather than endure the torture and mistreatment afforded to homosexuals there.

For all you know, there could be in-the-closet people in the Middle East or Africa, I never said ALL gays choose to. I said it's a combination of the three possibly. Some are born gay, some choose to be, some grow into it with time.

†

"Whether you choose to believe or not, mystic power is and always will be there."
- Morty

What's the point of telling you anything? You have such a deranged view on life that nothing will change your mind.

Same could be said about you sunshine.

Originally Posted by marioguy

I want women to be treated equally with men, and that somehow makes me sexist? You may want women to have authority and to be quiet like Timothy 2:12, but that's not how the world works.

I'm sorry. I can't tell if this is another one of your terribly worded posts, or if it really just doesn't make any sense. But I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. If it wasn't completely off topic (like 99% of your posts) I'd ask you to elaborate.

I agree with Chuboy; however it may be that people became gay, it does not make them unequal.

Also, Razor, I'm pretty sure that what Chuboy meant was that, if people choose to be gay, why would they choose to be it, knowing that they will be criticized, riducled and hated amon a lot of social circles?

Originally Posted by mattj

I'm sure you would know from first hand experience.Same could be said about you sunshine.I'm sorry.
I can't tell if this is another one of your terribly worded posts, or if it really just doesn't make any sense. But I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. If it wasn't completely off topic (like 99% of your posts) I'd ask you to elaborate.

I can tell from first-hand experience that that is not know becoming gay works. Problem?

About Mario's post, you called him a sexist person on your last post, when he had not said anything sexist at all, so he's defending himself by using a biblical reference, which seems is the only way you are able to understand things.

I think mattj was being sarcastic when he called marioguy sexist. He was trying to agree with marioguy saying that feminists want women to be superior and compared it to gay people wanting to be superior, so he wrote 'you homophobe' and then crossed it out and put 'you sexist' instead to make a point of comparing two labels used way too much to describe those who criticize overly victimized groups. At least, that is what I understood.

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

You might know me as Party Rock or The Silver Fern from ZU. You know, the forum that has less tolerance for trolling and Ad Hominem on its Serious Discussion board?

Originally Posted by mattj

I'm sure you would know from first hand experience.

I know from first hand experience that I didn't have any sexual attraction when I was very young. I'd say it's clear that most kinds of desire (including sexuality) are results of what you have been exposed to in the past and how it made you feel (which itself depends on many other circumstances), but that both are for the most part out of your control.

Actually no. I'm not gay, nor is anyone in my family. I actually haven't met a single homosexual until junior year of high school. I just happen to be informed of things.

You on the other hand do have a first hand experience. You claimed that your brother used to be homosexual, but was converted back to being a normal heterosexual. I think it would beneficial to this discussion if you talked about him. What was it like living with a gay person. Did it change your opinion of gay people?

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

On the whole person choosing to be gay factor. Maybe they were always gay and were trying really hard to hide their sexuality from others. And hey if you lie to yourself often, you tend to believe said lie.

Originally Posted by marioguy

You on the other hand do have a first hand experience. You claimed that your brother used to be homosexual, but was converted back to being a normal heterosexual.

Or in this case, maybe mattj's brother is merely buckling to peer pressure?

I mean people will often go to great lengths to please others (friends and families), and again that mean forcing themselves to behave in a heterosexual way, especially if they are rediculed for it.

And no, I'm probably wrong since I don't even know the him, but I thought it was worth considering.

I know from first hand experience that I didn't have any sexual attraction when I was very young. I'd say it's clear that most kinds of desire (including sexuality) are results of what you have been exposed to in the past and how it made you feel (which itself depends on many other circumstances), but that both are for the most part out of your control.

Quoted for truth...
I don't believe censoring gay media from... media (I know weird) is correct, but I do believe in censoring it from children as many will blame other homosexuals for their children (if they are) being gay because they were somewhat exposed to it in their childhood...
That way, they know everything Lady Gaga has been saying is spot on!

Now wait a second here. Honestly straight people have periods of being homosexual sometimes. Like I said, after puberty and during mid-life hormone loss are two times in someone's life they're especially likely to waver. So straight people can experiment with being gay, but gay people are neurologically unable to be straight? Am I the only one who finds this one-way street idea a little suspicious?

Last edited by CSolarstorm; 10th November 2011 at 5:58 AM.

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

Quoted for truth...
I don't believe censoring gay media from... media (I know weird) is correct, but I do believe in censoring it from children as many will blame other homosexuals for their children (if they are) being gay because they were somewhat exposed to it in their childhood...

Disagree. Part of why discrimination exists is because many people follow tradition and have the strong desire to conform.

Many people who discriminate against homosexuality were raised with the idea that a relationship between male and female is right and that same sex relationships is wrong.

A kid who's raised with the believes that homosexuality isn't wrong is more likely to be accepting of homosexuals than a kid who's told that men can only love women. I mean an adult (especially the more arrogant ones) are mostly set in their ways, while kids are more open to new ideas.

Heck, many posters I've seen speaking up against homosexuality base their beliefs on what their parents or church told them.

I know from first hand experience that I didn't have any sexual attraction when I was very young. I'd say it's clear that most kinds of desire (including sexuality) are results of what you have been exposed to in the past and how it made you feel (which itself depends on many other circumstances), but that both are for the most part out of your control.

sounds quite a bit like

Originally Posted by mattj

I think all the hot sweaty showers with ripped nude men probably had more to do with it.

If you weren't such a troll you might have admitted it. But hey. I'm conservative. It's wrong until it comes out of your mouth.

^ The idea of this thread was to have a debate that wasn't filled your ludicrous and immature posts.

If you have something relevant to the topic to add, go right ahead. Otherwise, keep it in your own thread as per SunnyC's wishes.

A kid who's raised with the believes that homosexuality isn't wrong is more likely to be accepting of homosexuals than a kid who's told that men can only love women. I mean an adult (especially the more arrogant ones) are mostly set in their ways, while kids are more open to new ideas.

Heck, many posters I've seen speaking up against homosexuality base their beliefs on what their parents or church told them.

What you'll find is that religious texts are ultimately the source of essentially all bigotry. Humans are not xenophobic or homophobic by nature but many of us are naive and will believe anything we're told. Including that homosexuality is displeasing to an invisible, undetectable supernatural being who created a universe 13.8 billion light years wide but is personally perturbed by the behaviour of humans.

mattj, you ought to know well that it's not hot, sweaty showers with ripped, nude men that would make him gay. I myself am of the belief that He was likely bisexual, but after his stroke, he reevaluated himself (likely subconsciously) and same to the realization he was gay. I think he was bisexual, but does not truly know he does not have to try to fit into a mold of label, which would explain how some of his more, shall we say, "camp" attributes have come out. I think once he realizes he can be both traditionally masculine and homo- or bisexual, that he may start to realize he's taking a bit more of an interest in certain things he did before his stroke.

In fact, I think that the worst part of what gay people are in the media, is that most are the extraordinarily camp ones. I mean, yes, Glee finally has Karofsky open up to at least a few guys, and has even self-identified as a gay bear cub, and I think that was a huge step forward. But the typical gay guy in media is always seen as Kurt, who is always in chic and could not stomach the idea of a gay guy not doting on Gaga or Judy Garland. So, in that case, I don't per se appreciate what they make gay guys out to be in the media. If they showed more variety in gay guys, showing true men's men, showing gay guys with stocky, hairy builds and are bald as a cue ball, showing gay guys that are just as likely to go to a play as they are to go to watch football. There's very little of any of that in even what little gay media there is.

And I ranted a bit, didn't I? But my point still stands. Rather than just adding typical gay characters to shows, they should do some research, and show us more realistic gay characters. Media needs to stop applying a cover-all label to us, and we need to stop trying to do the same.

Oh and also... he acquired the skill to be a hairdresser? Wtf?
anways chuboy is right, it is all perception of the viewers and WHAT they choose to take in and what not. Media can only do so much. Gay people will forever be portrayed as the way people want the media to portray em....

Originally Posted by marioguy
HEY GUYS! LOOK AT MY SIG! IT GETS ME OFF TO MAKE FUN OF MATTJ!

hmm.. interesting, I never saw marioguy say these exact words, next time be more mature and don't shove words in his mouth please. Oh and doing it in a large lettertype doesn't make you a good debater.

Now wait a second here. Honestly straight people have periods of being homosexual sometimes. Like I said, after puberty and during mid-life hormone loss are two times in someone's life they're especially likely to waver. So straight people can experiment with being gay, but gay people are neurologically unable to be straight? Am I the only one who finds this one-way street idea a little suspicious?

You certainly are not the only one, but I kind of touched on this particular topic in my first post.

Originally Posted by Nyter09

Quoted for truth...
I don't believe censoring gay media from... media (I know weird) is correct, but I do believe in censoring it from children as many will blame other homosexuals for their children (if they are) being gay because they were somewhat exposed to it in their childhood...
That way, they know everything Lady Gaga has been saying is spot on!

I kind of disagree. Just because people mistaken one thing for causation does not mean we should have to limit exposure. That seems counterproductive to me.

I think the same rules of appropriateness for children that apply to heterosexuality can be applied to homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Kutie Pie

About 97% of these women posing for pornographic pictures are held at gunpoint, and it can be anywhere. The majority of the time is by force.

Yeah chuboy, it seems a bit farfetched to assume that people that are religious are homophobic, or that people are homophobic because of religion. All three of my gay friends wear Jesus crosses, they attend Church every now and then.
Religion has nothing to do with homosexuality, that's only the ignorance of the WestBoro Church, they make us look bad.

†

"Whether you choose to believe or not, mystic power is and always will be there."
- Morty

Yeah chuboy, it seems a bit farfetched to assume that people that are religious are homophobic, or that people are homophobic because of religion. All three of my gay friends wear Jesus crosses, they attend Church every now and then. Religion has nothing to do with homosexuality, that's only the ignorance of the WestBoro Church, they make us look bad.

Lolwut? I thought chuboy did a pretty good job of clearing the area around his first comment and yet you still missed it.

I would like to direct you to this post, maybe it will help.

Originally Posted by chuboy

Certainly not. Fortunately there are people who read the Bible and treat it with rational consideration rather than blindly accepting its every word.

All I said was that the books... catalyse, if you will, several flavours of bigotry (among other things good and bad) and human nature inevitably leads to people perpetuating those notions.

Originally Posted by Kutie Pie

About 97% of these women posing for pornographic pictures are held at gunpoint, and it can be anywhere. The majority of the time is by force.

4. Do not use someone's family members as an example. Please don't use another member's family or friends as an example to prove something in the debate without getting permission from that member. They're not fair targets just because that member brought them into the debate.

5. Don't post giant/bold off-topic messages. Statements emphasized with a giant font, all caps, or a style meant to catch attention that are irrelevant to the topic like "U MAD" or "SICK BRO!" should be reported as spam. Don't do this with pictures, either.

So say you are gay (if you aren't) and you are with your same sex partner and there is a five year old nearby... would you engage in a kiss with your partner in front of the 5 year old child?

Would you not feel weird to be romantic in front of the child because the child may feel weird about it...?
Im all for gays, but for a child it is normal to see say cinderella and the prince to kiss but NOT to see the prince and the axe man kiss.
Like do y'all get me? Im not trying to censor gay intimacy but just keep it away from innocent eues who don't know todays debate.

What you'll find is that religious texts are ultimately the source of essentially all bigotry. Humans are not xenophobic or homophobic by nature but many of us are naive and will believe anything we're told.

This is so untrue. Humans are programmed to avoid people who are different. It's how we've lived since the caveman days. "If you're not in my tribe, you could be an enemy. Your lifestyle and beliefs are different than my tribe, so you must be wrong." That's intrinsic to human thinking. People who don't conform to the social norm are viewed with suspicion, contempt, and disdain. "Us vs. them" is the way people think. So yes, humans are absolutely xenophobic by nature. I wouldn't say humans are naturally homophobic, but if homosexuality is what the society decides is wrong or different, then that makes homosexuals "the other." It makes them the alien ones from the other tribe. Human's aren't homophobic by nature, but we are xenophobic by nature. And in a society where homosexuality is not accepted, that xenophobia leads to homophobia. That's the root of virtually all bigotry. We don't hate people specifically because they like the same gender or because they have a different skin color or because they speak a different language. We hate them because they're different from us. We don't understand people who are different, and we fear what we don't understand.

So no, religion didn't cause people to become homophobic. People seem to think that we were okay with gay marriage until religion came along and told us it was wrong. That's not the case. The anti-gay implications in religion arose because of homophobia, not the other way around. Religion provides an excuse for people to justify their own homophobia.

Originally Posted by Nyter09

^ then how we gonna fend off homophobes and trolls?

So say you are gay (if you aren't) and you are with your same sex partner and there is a five year old nearby... would you engage in a kiss with your partner in front of the 5 year old child?

Would you not feel weird to be romantic in front of the child because the child may feel weird about it...?
Im all for gays, but for a child it is normal to see say cinderella and the prince to kiss but NOT to see the prince and the axe man kiss.
Like do y'all get me? Im not trying to censor gay intimacy but just keep it away from innocent eues who don't know todays debate.

The only reason it isn't "normal" for children to see the prince and the axe man kiss is because society says it's not. If we lived in a society where gay couples were as common as straight couples, the child wouldn't bat an eye. It's not inherently wrong as a universal rule of the universe, it's "wrong" simply because it doesn't conform to what our culture says is normal.